Towards the regeneration of brown mosses for fen restoration
A low rate of establishment in brown mosses is generally observed following large-scale restoration of fens. As brown mosses are important components in peat accumulation in fens, their low recovery rate has been a concern in the past decade. It was suggested that the restoration method used for bog...
Saved in:
Published in | The Bryologist Vol. 125; no. 1; pp. 23 - 35 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
American Bryological and Lichenological Society
04.01.2022
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | A low rate of establishment in brown mosses is generally observed following large-scale restoration of fens. As brown mosses are important components in peat accumulation in fens, their low recovery rate has been a concern in the past decade. It was suggested that the restoration method used for bogs, the Moss Layer Transfer Technique (MLTT) should be adapted for fen restoration by identifying factors limiting the establishment and recovery of brown mosses. In this study, we evaluated the regeneration potential of four common brown mosses, Aulacomnium palustre, Campylium stellatum, Scorpidium cossonii and Tomentypnum nitens, according to three factors that can have an impact during restoration: 1) distance of the fragment below the moss apex, 2) mechanical fragmentation of mosses, and 3) enhanced nutrient availability, and this, in growth chambers (within Petri dishes) and field experiments. Under controlled conditions, similar results were obtained for all four brown mosses studied: the severe fragmentation of mosses most drastically improved their regeneration potential. Phosphate fertilization, even at the lowest dose, increased moss regeneration, and brown mosses showed higher recovery in the first 3 cm below the apex. Liming only improved the regeneration of C. stellatum. However, unclear, and even contradicting results were obtained when treatments were applied in the field, where an overall very low establishment of brown mosses was observed in response to the rather prevailing adverse environmental conditions (e.g., erosion, frost heaving, low water table level). The direct application of some of our results into an adapted version of MLTT might be challenging, as it may require a certain level of meticulosity that large-scale mechanical fen restoration cannot provide. |
---|---|
AbstractList | A low rate of establishment in brown mosses is generally observed following large-scale restoration of fens. As brown mosses are important components in peat accumulation in fens, their low recovery rate has been a concern in the past decade. It was suggested that the restoration method used for bogs, the Moss Layer Transfer Technique (MLTT) should be adapted for fen restoration by identifying factors limiting the establishment and recovery of brown mosses. In this study, we evaluated the regeneration potential of four common brown mosses, Aulacomnium palustre, Campylium stellatum, Scorpidium cossonii and Tomentypnum nitens, according to three factors that can have an impact during restoration: 1) distance of the fragment below the moss apex, 2) mechanical fragmentation of mosses, and 3) enhanced nutrient availability, and this, in growth chambers (within Petri dishes) and field experiments. Under controlled conditions, similar results were obtained for all four brown mosses studied: the severe fragmentation of mosses most drastically improved their regeneration potential. Phosphate fertilization, even at the lowest dose, increased moss regeneration, and brown mosses showed higher recovery in the first 3 cm below the apex. Liming only improved the regeneration of C. stellatum. However, unclear, and even contradicting results were obtained when treatments were applied in the field, where an overall very low establishment of brown mosses was observed in response to the rather prevailing adverse environmental conditions (e.g., erosion, frost heaving, low water table level). The direct application of some of our results into an adapted version of MLTT might be challenging, as it may require a certain level of meticulosity that large-scale mechanical fen restoration cannot provide. |
Author | Hugron, Sandrine Guêné-Nanchen, Mélina Fenton, Nicole J Meilleur, Sébastien Rochefort, Line |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Sébastien surname: Meilleur fullname: Meilleur, Sébastien organization: Peatland Ecology Research Group, Centre for Northern Studies and Plant Sciences Department, 2480 boulevard Hochelaga, Université Laval, Quebec City, G1V 0A6, Québec, Canada – sequence: 2 givenname: Mélina surname: Guêné-Nanchen fullname: Guêné-Nanchen, Mélina organization: Peatland Ecology Research Group, Centre for Northern Studies and Plant Sciences Department, 2480 boulevard Hochelaga, Université Laval, Quebec City, G1V 0A6, Québec, Canada – sequence: 3 givenname: Sandrine surname: Hugron fullname: Hugron, Sandrine organization: Peatland Ecology Research Group, Centre for Northern Studies and Plant Sciences Department, 2480 boulevard Hochelaga, Université Laval, Quebec City, G1V 0A6, Québec, Canada – sequence: 4 givenname: Nicole J surname: Fenton fullname: Fenton, Nicole J organization: Institut de Recherche sur les Forêts, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 445 boulevard de l'Université, Rouyn-Noranda, Québec J9X 5E4, Canada – sequence: 5 givenname: Line surname: Rochefort fullname: Rochefort, Line organization: Peatland Ecology Research Group, Centre for Northern Studies and Plant Sciences Department, 2480 boulevard Hochelaga, Université Laval, Quebec City, G1V 0A6, Québec, Canada |
BookMark | eNqNkb1OwzAURi1UJNrCE7B4ZEnxtWPHllhQBQWpEkuZLcexISiNi52q4u1xCWJggeku57s_587QpA-9Q-gSyAIEU9eEkKqgVckLoHwBC0LZCZqCYrIoWSUnaPpDnKFZSm-EgKBETNHNJhxMbBIeXh2O7sX1LpqhDT0OHtcxHHq8DSm5hH2I2Ls-Q2kII3OOTr3pkrv4rnP0fH-3WT4U66fV4_J2XdSUl0NhbKU4U0p5D9RSxUvXCOJpwy00UjpZS1FXRHoAxplpqLWyYcIpKWsBpmJzdDX23cXwvs_z9bZN1nWd6V3YJ02FAMKpBJlRNqI25rWj83oX262JHxqIPrrSRxP6aEJnVxp0dpVT6lfKtsPXiUM0bfdHFsZs3Yb8lX_N-wRtAX50 |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoleng_2024_107496 |
Cites_doi | 10.1007/BF03161431 10.4141/S00-089 10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009002127.x 10.1007/BF00047765 10.18637/jss.v082.i13 10.1007/BF03161517 10.1007/s11104-014-2193-7 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00283.x 10.1139/cjb-2016-0023 10.1639/079.031.0402 10.1639/0007-2745(2007)110[595:DIBAR]2.0.CO;2 10.1139/f95-059 10.1371/journal.pone.0187944 10.1017/CBO9781139059152.015 10.1139/B07-045 10.1639/0007-2745(2000)103[0503:SAKGIH]2.0.CO;2 10.2307/2403339 10.1007/978-94-017-1335-1_6 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02300.x 10.2307/3243564 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1992.tb00015.x 10.1111/gcb.14449 10.1139/b05-025 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.051 10.2307/3243306 10.5822/978-1-61091-042-2 10.1139/cjb-2016-0281 10.1017/CBO9781139177788.011 10.1639/0007-2745(2005)108[86:FIBAAD]2.0.CO;2 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2004.tb00612.x 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.019 10.1672/06-136.1 10.1639/0007-2745(2000)103[0592:WDOBFI]2.0.CO;2 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.015 10.1002/ecs2.2823 10.5586/asbp.1992.001 10.1007/BF00379011 10.1016/j.flora.2010.04.020 10.7872/cryb.v35.iss4.2014.397 10.1007/BF03160747 10.3170/2008-7-18565 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2006.tb00672.x 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.017 10.1007/s10661-009-1030-6 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00009.x 10.1639/0007-2745(2002)105[0096:ROPMTB]2.0.CO;2 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00437.x 10.1179/jbr.1992.17.1.59 10.3176/eco.2010.1.02 10.1017/CBO9781139171304.011 10.1139/cjb-2018-0109 10.1017/CBO9780511754807 10.1016/0006-3207(94)90331-X 10.1016/j.ppees.2014.06.003 10.1023/A:1022011027946 10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00046-9 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2007.05.001 10.1111/1365-2664.12555 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.019 10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0032:DHTFSR]2.0.CO;2 10.1672/0277-5212(2000)020[0616:COWAPC]2.0.CO;2 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | Copyright ©2022 by The American Bryological and Lichenological Society, Inc. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright ©2022 by The American Bryological and Lichenological Society, Inc. |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION 7S9 L.6 |
DOI | 10.1639/0007-2745-125.1.023 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | AGRICOLA |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Botany |
EISSN | 1938-4378 |
EndPage | 35 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_1639_0007_2745_125_1_023 10.1639/0007-2745-125.1.023 |
GroupedDBID | 02 123 23N 79B AACFU AAPSS ABDBF ADHSS ADOYD AEDJY AENEX AEPYG AEUPB AFNWH AKPMI ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS CS3 DU5 EBD EF F5P JH JLS KM L7B OK1 P2P PQ0 Q5J RBO WH7 X XOL ZCG -JH -~X AAHBH AAHKG AAXTN AAYXX ABPLY ABTLG ACUHS AEEJZ AFAZZ CITATION LU7 ZCA ~02 ~EF ~KM 7S9 L.6 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-b254t-ac7953999ff12c2954ed60f2d5c1d88e8b86b708f11353ad2cc8d36e988b61a73 |
ISSN | 0007-2745 |
IngestDate | Fri Jul 11 10:22:01 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 03:50:44 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:09:40 EDT 2025 Thu Mar 10 06:32:58 EST 2022 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Language | English |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-b254t-ac7953999ff12c2954ed60f2d5c1d88e8b86b708f11353ad2cc8d36e988b61a73 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
PQID | 2661052818 |
PQPubID | 24069 |
PageCount | 13 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2661052818 crossref_primary_10_1639_0007_2745_125_1_023 crossref_citationtrail_10_1639_0007_2745_125_1_023 bioone_primary_10_1639_0007_2745_125_1_023 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 20220104 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2022-01-04 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2022 text: 20220104 day: 04 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationTitle | The Bryologist |
PublicationYear | 2022 |
Publisher | American Bryological and Lichenological Society |
Publisher_xml | – name: American Bryological and Lichenological Society |
References | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 10 54 11 55 12 56 13 57 14 58 15 59 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 60 61 62 63 20 64 21 65 66 22 23 67 24 68 25 69 26 27 28 29 70 71 72 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 |
References_xml | – ident: 39 doi: 10.1007/BF03161431 – ident: 7 doi: 10.4141/S00-089 – ident: 51 doi: 10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009002127.x – ident: 52 doi: 10.1007/BF00047765 – ident: 36 doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13 – ident: 16 – ident: 6 doi: 10.1007/BF03161517 – ident: 10 doi: 10.1007/s11104-014-2193-7 – ident: 25 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00283.x – ident: 61 doi: 10.1139/cjb-2016-0023 – ident: 66 doi: 10.1639/079.031.0402 – ident: 58 doi: 10.1639/0007-2745(2007)110[595:DIBAR]2.0.CO;2 – ident: 68 doi: 10.1139/f95-059 – ident: 60 – ident: 47 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187944 – ident: 21 doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139059152.015 – ident: 2 doi: 10.1139/B07-045 – ident: 63 doi: 10.1639/0007-2745(2000)103[0503:SAKGIH]2.0.CO;2 – ident: 64 doi: 10.2307/2403339 – ident: 38 doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-1335-1_6 – ident: 1 – ident: 59 – ident: 35 doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2004.tb02300.x – ident: 71 – ident: 14 doi: 10.2307/3243564 – ident: 42 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1992.tb00015.x – ident: 49 doi: 10.1111/gcb.14449 – ident: 53 doi: 10.1139/b05-025 – ident: 19 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.051 – ident: 69 doi: 10.2307/3243306 – ident: 31 doi: 10.5822/978-1-61091-042-2 – ident: 4 doi: 10.1139/cjb-2016-0281 – ident: 33 doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139177788.011 – ident: 40 – ident: 48 doi: 10.1639/0007-2745(2005)108[86:FIBAAD]2.0.CO;2 – ident: 18 – ident: 9 doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2004.tb00612.x – ident: 3 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.019 – ident: 24 doi: 10.1672/06-136.1 – ident: 46 doi: 10.1639/0007-2745(2000)103[0592:WDOBFI]2.0.CO;2 – ident: 37 – ident: 43 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.015 – ident: 50 doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2823 – ident: 20 doi: 10.5586/asbp.1992.001 – ident: 28 – ident: 70 doi: 10.1007/BF00379011 – ident: 12 doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2010.04.020 – ident: 57 – ident: 45 doi: 10.7872/cryb.v35.iss4.2014.397 – ident: 8 doi: 10.1007/BF03160747 – ident: 22 doi: 10.3170/2008-7-18565 – ident: 34 doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2006.tb00672.x – ident: 44 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.017 – ident: 29 doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-1030-6 – ident: 26 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00009.x – ident: 11 doi: 10.1639/0007-2745(2002)105[0096:ROPMTB]2.0.CO;2 – ident: 23 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00437.x – ident: 41 doi: 10.1179/jbr.1992.17.1.59 – ident: 30 doi: 10.3176/eco.2010.1.02 – ident: 67 doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139171304.011 – ident: 15 – ident: 13 doi: 10.1139/cjb-2018-0109 – ident: 17 doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511754807 – ident: 32 doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(94)90331-X – ident: 27 doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2014.06.003 – ident: 62 doi: 10.1023/A:1022011027946 – ident: 56 doi: 10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00046-9 – ident: 65 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2007.05.001 – ident: 5 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12555 – ident: 54 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.019 – ident: 55 doi: 10.1672/0277-5212(2001)021[0032:DHTFSR]2.0.CO;2 – ident: 72 doi: 10.1672/0277-5212(2000)020[0616:COWAPC]2.0.CO;2 |
SSID | ssj0016206 |
Score | 2.2850962 |
Snippet | A low rate of establishment in brown mosses is generally observed following large-scale restoration of fens. As brown mosses are important components in peat... |
SourceID | proquest crossref bioone |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Enrichment Source Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | 23 |
SubjectTerms | Amblystegiaceae Aulacomniaceae bryophyte biology Calliergonaceae fens fertilization fragmentation frost liming mosses and liverworts nutrient availability peat phosphates water table |
Title | Towards the regeneration of brown mosses for fen restoration |
URI | http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1639/0007-2745-125.1.023 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2661052818 |
Volume | 125 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9QwELaWLQcuiKcoLxmJE-CycR5OJC67QFUhyoVW6i2yHRuBSoK2m0P5U_xFZmzHyYqqarlEK-_ayc58Gc94XoS8tEJqpUXGJJeCZbopmBRVzgArQliVq8wliR1-KQ6Os08n-cls9mcStdRv1J7-fWFeyf9wFcaAr5glew3OxkVhAD4Df-EKHIbr1XjsYl7PfJggmP9YQXrQABXa169_dujUdbGE1mDmCgZDjsz4MWJltT7vxnQgxwODeYK9b8zlHeqw52EZ1hi007vhZeu_ZSiqQ7bHoR86Dd25PXK-rb2P_6tsm_XEoQ9EDVH8Dpgm-KrCYQTn7jBiPIyMXqbhmYeCB58xrrWNQyEidUswCwYGsndwGy-LK5DFWeo7_ERh7dOkt1AZRG862cR9CZR_tgdQx3w8pb8Zg9X2sGZrOu6GMUbx0t_fIDsc7BI-JzvL1YfVfnRcFdy1c41TQqErWOjtBcuA2qO-d11rtrWibaXAaTpHd8jtYKLQpcfbXTIz7T1yc9WBGXF-n7wLoKMAOjoFHe0sdaCjHnQUQEcBdHQCugfkeP_j0fsDFlpwMMXzbMOkhhcXdNjK2oRr9AmbplhY3uQ6acrSlKoslFiUNsH-KbLhWpdNWpiqLFWRSJE-JPMW_t8jQqVMU5FaWTW4SqYlX2hUZtEIzprE7pJXnhb1L19npUb7FAiH8RGiRsLVQLg6qWHGLuEDvWoditljT5XTyye9iZOudI8XAyNqkLnoSJOt6fqzGpXaRY511B5f56GfkFvjO_OUzDfr3jwDlXajngcY_QWjmJVN |
linkProvider | EBSCOhost |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Towards+the+regeneration+of+brown+mosses+for+fen+restoration&rft.jtitle=The+Bryologist&rft.au=Meilleur%2C+S%C3%A9bastien&rft.au=Gu%C3%AAn%C3%A9-Nanchen%2C+M%C3%A9lina&rft.au=Hugron%2C+Sandrine&rft.au=Fenton%2C+Nicole+J&rft.date=2022-01-04&rft.pub=American+Bryological+and+Lichenological+Society&rft.issn=0007-2745&rft.eissn=1938-4378&rft.volume=125&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=23&rft.epage=35&rft_id=info:doi/10.1639%2F0007-2745-125.1.023&rft.externalDocID=10.1639%2F0007-2745-125.1.023 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0007-2745&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0007-2745&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0007-2745&client=summon |